In a monumental victory for truth and justice in the Catholic Church abuse story, a federal judge has ruled that the lawyer-funded group SNAP indeed defamed St. Louis priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and conspired to falsely claim the priest of child sex abuse.

In her ruling, the judge sanctioned SNAP, its national director David Clohessy, and its "outreach director" Barbara Dorris and ordered them to pay for Fr. Jiang's attorney fees and expenses.

As we reported back in June 2015, Fr. Jiang filed a federal lawsuit against SNAP, who continued to publicly accuse the cleric of being a child molester even after being twice cleared of crazy sex abuse claims.

The abuse claims were outlandish from the beginning. The accuser "had made previous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse" and already had a reputation of being "a serial exaggerator to the point of being 'delusional.'"

Meanwhile, one of the accuser's parents had a "history of making unfounded claims against the Catholic Church for monetary gain" and had a long record in the civil court system, with at least 2 liens and 16 judgments against him.

SNAP's willful contempt

Throughout the legal process, SNAP repeatedly and willfully defied a federal judge's orders to hand over important documentary evidence in the case. Then, as we reported just a few weeks ago, the group proceeded to orchestrate a fraudulent media campaign about the case.

So when U.S. District Court Judge Carol E. Jackson issued her ruling this week, she really let SNAP have it, concluding:

"SNAP defendants' refusal to comply with the Court's discovery orders has been willful and in bad faith";

"SNAP defendants conspired with one another and others to obtain plaintiff's conviction on sexual abuse charges and that they entered into this conspiracy due to discriminatory animus against plaintiff based on his religion, religious vocation, race and national origin";

"SNAP defendants' public statements about plaintiff (Fr. Jiang) were false and they did not conduct any inquiry into the truth or falsity of these public statements, but instead made these statements negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth."

To punish SNAP for its recklessness, Jackson ordered that SNAP "pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees, caused by their failure to comply with the Court's orders."

Comments

I feel so sorry that people have to read P's lies. Not because they are about me, that's all he does; but because his nastiness just reeks. I mean It's unwell. It's not healthy. He's like an open sewer of venom. He's poison. Not to me or my veracity just to life itself, really. Why would anybody want to be that bad?

And on the 8th at 707PM JR will attempt to deal with the material on the table by heading for his preferred version of the high-ground: with a combination of pearl-clutching and the Wig of Condescension: he doth “feel so sorry for people” … apparently the same “people” upon whom he larded the layers of his rape story for years here.

And he doth so because “they have to read [my] lies” – with, of course, no demonstration by accurate quotation of any “lies” at all. They had to read his stuff and accept all manner of assertions, accusations, epithets and so forth for years … but that doesn’t seem to bother him at al; (and why should it since this is merely a performance?).

Then the Wig of Diagnosis – or rather of Epithetical Diagnosis since he doesn’t explain how he reached his diagnosis (Wigs, as we now know, are only good for mimicry but don’t actually contain an intelligence chip underneath the bangles and beads). But the Wig of Diagnosis is only a Wig, and this entire bit here is merely a cover for epithet and nothing more.

And then more and more obvious epithet (“an open sewer”) worked into the diagnostic mimicry. Which leads to riffing on “venom” and “poison”.

But having had his romp in the plop, JR now has set himself a problem: he might well appear to be merely engaging in his usual self-serving plop-tossy epithet.

He has to come up with some way to distract from that. Whatever shall he do?

His solution is sly but obvious: the Tribune is not concerned for himself and his own “veracity” (as if that ship hasn’t already sailed). No, he is nobly but profoundly concerned because I am “poison” – popcorn, please – “to life itself, really”. That’s how “bad” I am.

And even more slyly, he instantly tries to manipulate readers beyond any thought about the assertion he just posed by asking a question that presumes his assertion: “Why would [I] want to be that bad?”.

If kris is talking about P. He could just as easily be talking about me. Where Who Why are the readership here. There must be some or Dave wouldn't do what he does here. Every once in a while usually just after Dave's posted something "new" There's a little flutter of activity here. Talk wise. But who are the readership here? Why are they here? How did they get here? Do they come back? Or has old dulcet tones, "P"amela "P"ositivity. driven them away with her varicose, vacuous venom. Flashing those tired old wits (tits) of hers and clutching them to herself as if they were jewels. and she was the Queen of Sheba. Or Captain of the Minnow

I mean most likely there are very few readers here. Dave can show the # of comments (Hand enhanced by P) to whom ever he shows his stats to for here. My question is: Why is this site here? I know it's to pretend there's a need for it. But is that working? You have to have more than Dave and Publion and Malcolm if you are to pretend this site comes from a natural matrix of concerned Catholics. Where am they? (I meant to say "am") Doesn't seem like very many care about your issues.

On the 8th at 1054PM ‘Dan’ will now try to extricate himself from what he actually said; readers may read his actual original statements and then read this bit of 1054PM and realize that his only solution is to ignore what he actually wrote and now try to explain-it-away as if he had written something else entirely, i.e. that when he referred to the “government” he was actually referring to the Pope and the bishops and the thing goes downhill from there.

And yet then he also tries to make sense of his original whacky statement too: it’s “not such a far stretch” that “popes [are] puppet leaders of countries or govt’s”; because – doncha see? – if Popes are “cozying up to” world leaders then … they are “puppet leaders of countries or gov’ts” … ?

Again, simplified for simple-minds. Do you actually work at being stupid or does that come naturally. Gov't does nothing to seek justice, and THEIR, (the CATHOLIC CULT'S) puppet leader, does nothing to seek justice. As far as all your other repetitive ignorance, no comment necessary.

And yet – marvelously – it is I who am “reaching for straws and “blowing things way out of proportion” (which, in ‘Dan’-speak, means taking ‘Dan’s words as they are written and revealing the whackery that he puts into his statements). We should just, rather, believe his cartoons and not look too closely at them.

Which – when you think about it – is pretty much the same strategy the Stampede uses for its stories: believe them but don’t be so gauche and insensitive as to actually consider them closely.

And then the “P.S.” is just another ranting repetition of some of his usual stuff about Catholics worshipping the Pope and Mary.

On the 9th at 3AM ‘Dan’ will try to reduce my comments of the 6th at 1257PM to “another example” of “excuses” – which they are clearly not designed to be.

They are valid and relevant factors to be taken into consideration, and readers may consider them as they will.

And readers now familiar with the extreme contortions ‘Dan’ has deployed in order to wish-away the consequences and probabilities inherent-in and flowing-from his own claims about his numerous and serious misadventures may consider (perhaps with some popcorn) this huffy and pearl-clutching declamation about Yes-Yes and No-No.

And – as always – his bits are predicated completely upon the presumption that “victims” were genuine and their stories and claims accurate and veracious. Which – I think it is now clear – is at the least dubious and at the most highly improbable and implausible, sufficiently so that to start up such a Tribunal is simply going to re-create the Stampede (which is now in dire need of some re-creation).

The cartoon bit about “unchecked” is some extra-factual lard that ‘Dan’ layers on for rhetorical effect and in order to bolster his cartoon.

And the tea-leaf reading to the effect that the Pope had “no intentions of keeping his” plan or promise ditto. It was ill-advised to make so hasty a statement without giving it full consideration and it is fortunate that he re-considered all the elements and aspects of the proposed Tribunal.

I would like to comment on your continuous disrespect for God's word, "…(perhaps with some popcorn) this huffy and pearl-clutching declamation about Yes-Yes and No-No." Along with your obsession towards "cartoons", I get the impression that you take God's word and the sins of your church as some joke. Along with this, I'll include a response to your blatant accusations that I rant and use the Lord's word as a weapon, and what the Lord says in response to these claims.

"…but let him who has my word speak my word in truth"…Is not my word like fire?" declares the LORD, "and like a hammer which shatters a rock? Jerimiah 23:28-29

"We tear down arguments, and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Cor 10:5

"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it pierces even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

Readers may now consider the right way to use the Lord's word. When false prophets or teachers tell you all is well, and make excuses for their horrific sins, it's up to you to distinguish between who is on the side of truth and who are the hypocrite liars.

‘Kris’ – as I had surmised – hasn’t actually moved on to other recreations. He returns on the 9th at 127AM and apparently plans to keep tossing up drive-by bits without – as he said – ever having to feel the need to explain or defend his stuff. Readers may consider his material – and him – as they will.

On the 9th at 520PM JR opens – as so often – with a “Yawn!” and then borrows that “blah blah” bit from “Kris” (who may have borrowed it from him to begin-with, but one never knows since Abuseniks seem to share some of the same strategies and tics).

That being done, JR then proceeds to riff on a different subject (no doubt needing to change the subject anyway): he riffs in speculation as to the readership here.

And all we get of any possible interest are a couple of rhetorical bits (the alliteration of the ‘v’ and the play on the ‘P’ and the play on “tits” and “wits” – all very yuk-yuk but irrelevant).

And – for lack of anything better – JR then tosses up his old chestnut about “Why is this site here?”. ‘To explore and assess the Catholic Abuse Matter’ would – yet again – do nicely as an answer to that question but that isn’t really what JR is after here.

And given what we’ve seen about how his own story didn’t really live up to its own claims and expectations, then it’s anybody’s guess how JR can soberly claim that the site only “pretend[s] there’s a need for it”. But, again, we are supposed to ‘believe’ but aren’t supposed to assess or question.

And why he deliberately intended to say “where am they?” is just another of JR’s tics that any reader so inclined can try to suss out.

He plaints about whether there actually is “a natural matrix of concerned Catholics” (wow, now that’s a rather attention-getting phrase, especially considering the source here). And where, for that matter, are they myriads of still-unreported allegants to which JR so often alludes?

But I would say that in this current crop of Abusenik comments we see again that the Stampede was never intended to be questioned or assessed; it was to be ‘believed’ and nobody was supposed to have the insensitive temerity to question and assess the various claims, stories, accusations, assertions and so on.

And ‘Dan’s bits differ in this regard only to the extent that ‘Dan’ is so far gone around the bend that he (or He) cawn’t possibly see how anyone can not-see what he (or He) sees as clear as day.

And on the 9th a few minutes later at 532PM JR will pronounce and declaim that I “can’t write as well as [he does]”.

Readers may consider his accuracy and veracity as they will, but it seems that he had glommed onto a new epithet (“pedestrian”) and needed to construct some sort of platform that would enable him to deploy it as a zingy conclusion.

Here is a fact: The Catholic Church knowingly harbors and protects sexual predators. Look at the evidence. So what if "TMR" serves as nothing more than an apologist for the Catholic Church's sex crimes and cover ups. That does not change the facts. Oh, we get it..well look at what they are doing? LOL…that is coming from the Catholic Church who claims to be to ultimate power and authority with ultimate morals on this planet. Well, somel now know that that bogus claim is not true. Have a nice day Mafia. LOL

Bring on the next "Big issue" Dave. This house done burned down. All that's left is the smoke.

P,(for brains) asks where are the allegants?

Why they've been told they can't seek damages. Usually told this by Jeff Anderson or SNAP. I know I was told this by both of them in 1992.

We in Calif. got "fair" settlements but people in other states can't sue at all. If you can't receive any reparations for what is, arguably, the worst event in your life. Why on earth would you want to think about it at all or ever again? No help. No healing. No compensation for the damage done.Just trouble and pain. Victims stick it back in storage and limp on in their damaged lives. Knowing they've been cheated again by the "one true church" God put on this earth.

On the 10th at 709PM ‘Dan’ will merely try to wish-away my points with epithet, and the lards on the assertion (without demonstration, of course) that “Gov’t does nothing to seek justice” and neither does the Pope (now demoted, in the cartoon, from being leader of the US government and courts).

Beyond those bits, ‘Dan’ – and the herd in his (or His) bathroom mirror – do declare and proclaim (rather conveniently and self-servingly) that “no comment necessary”.

On then to the 11th at 719PM where ‘Dan’ now buckles down to my “continuous disrespect for God’s Word”.

As always, I take issue not with Scripture but with ‘Dan’s attempts to use it to support his personal cartoon (which, we recall, both a) semi-divinizes himself (or Himself) while b) taking aim at anyone or anything else not appreciative of his cartoon).

Thus ‘Dan’’s “impression” remains for whatever readers care to make of it.

And he doth promise to “include a response” – but actually it’s just more Scriptural pericopes from his rolodex of pericopes, designed to imply that what God says and what ‘Dan’ says are pretty much the same thing (coming as they do, according to the cartoon, from the same source and Source).

And – just to make sure – then reminds readers that his (or His) is “the right way to use the Lord’s word”.

No need for me to respond to peewee's 'Cartoon' Time, but a God-gram has come for you.

"With the Lord's faith, we can face demons of any kind. He puts them in our lives so we will fight for the right to believe in Him, because we are the Lord's children. They will slander those who love Him. We have the love of the Lord in our hearts. We have His trust for guidance. The world has no remorse. Without the love of the Lord there would not be life. He is the Creator. He will decide the fate of the demons. He will deliver us from evil." The Divine Servant

And clearly appears to mistake ‘readers’ and ‘commenters’, in his effort to wish-away this site as having only the “two to five” who comment here.

Again, we are given the opportunity to consider the quality of the mentation we have seen demonstrated by Abusenik commenters … and thus to consider just what types were invited from the get-go to proffer their stuff to the Stampede.

That “the Catholic Church knowingly harbors and protects sexual predators”.

And before one can begin to point out the problems with that “fact”, ‘Kris’ then enticingly instructs us to “look at the evidence” – and suddenly one is excited by the prospect that ‘Kris’ will proffer some.

But … no, he just leaves the “evidence” bit hanging there and quickly moves on to epithet.

What he’s going for, of course, is the old Playbook gambit: once all the stories and claims and ‘reports’ have been injected into the atmosphere, then ‘everyone knows’ so there’s no need to actually look at any “evidence” at all. Indeed, to do so would merely be ‘insensitive’ and ‘re-victimizing’.

But we have had a chance to look at “evidence” over the course of time here, much of it proffered by Abuseniks themselves, and the stuff turns out not to have been so ‘evidentiary’ at all.

You want evidence – Fr. Oliver o'Grady, Fr. Marcial Maciel, Fr. Lawrence Murphy, just to name a very few. Maybe you should try a wiki search on "Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country", and get your head out of the sand. We're not buying your ignorance or stupidity.

And we get a re-run of the old Abusenik bit that TMR is merely “nothing more than an apologist for the Catholic Church’s sex crimes and cover ups”.

No quotations, of course, that demonstrate where TMR is attempting to be an “apologist” – and that’s as it should be, since there is no such material that he could quote.

As far as I can see, this site looks at the claims and allegations and ‘reporting’ and other aspects of the Catholic Abuse Matter and points out what the Abuseniks don’t want anyone to see or to think about.

And – again from the Playbook – he tries to cap it all off and close it all off by claiming to “know” persons who actually “know” that the “bogus claim” of the Church is not true. Leading one to quickly wonder i) does he actually “know” anybody and b) does that “anybody” actually “know” the Church’s status to be “bogus” … ?

Once again, Abusenik “evidence” turns out to be a hall of mirrors.

And thus on to the juvenile conclusion with the Mafia bit and the nice-day bit.

His response to my question (as to where the myriad un-reported claims and allegants might be) is that those myriads have – he doth assure us and we can take his word for it – have “been told they can’t seek damages”. Thus – neatly – that the Statutes of Limitation are keeping the myriads quiet.

Or – I would say – perhaps there just aren’t any out there.

Or torties might now be telling such prospective check-collectors that the Moment has passed and any claims and stories they might wish to lodge now run the risk of being looked-at more closely than was ever the case in the salad days of the Stampede.

JR then claims that he was told something like this by no less a personage than Jeff Anderson and some SNAP functionaries way back in 1992. Is this bit at all credible in light of the history of the Stampede? Anderson had already laid the groundwork for SNAP fronting for the torties in the late ‘80s. And surely JR got his swag in 2006 or 2007 as a result of the monster 500-plus plaintiff case in LA.

Perhaps JR was told – perhaps even by Anderson himself in 1992 – that his own story and claim was pretty thin.

But then after 2002 things got better in that regard and things went on to that 2006 case. When by that era, as we know, one could collect a million for claiming that one’s hand was stuck down the pants of a Brother-teacher.

But this bit then leads into another commercial for JR himself: it was fortunate that “we in California” did get “fair” settlements, and readers may consider that as they may.

And he then demonstrates his lack of legal chops by claiming that “people in other states can’t sue at all” – which, even if it were true (other States have opened up their SOLs, although – as I have noted – only verrrry selectively so as to avoid subjecting public entities and the public treasury being turned into a piñata for the Stampede), doesn’t seem to have resulted in fresh myriads of fresh allegations.

Then a further sly rhetorical reference to the checks as “reparations”.

Then a stab at trying to explain-away the lack of fresh allegations: if you had undergone such an (alleged) experience, and you knew you couldn’t get any cash for it, then why would you bother to “think about it at all or ever again?”. (As so often with JR, it’s all about the money.)

Reminding readers of nothing so much as the fact that in actual PTSD treatment, the patients don’t claim that they can’t remember, but that they can’t forget, no matter how hard they might try. What we are seeing here from JR is merely an echo of the old ‘repressed memory’ theory, this time bolstered (and tainted, I would say) by deliberate and conscious concern for money.

And the pearl-clutching stab at sympathy with the bit about “limp[ing] on in their damaged lives”. Reminding one and all that there always remains the vivid and vital question: did the alleged abuse cause the damaged life, or did the already damaged life (and self) take advantage of the Stampede to cash in … ?

And – given JR’s own performance here and the results of his years-long claim about ‘rape’, he can take his concluding epithetical riff and deliver it to his bathroom mirror. If he has the courage to do so.

Yawn. So, if Elizabeth Loftus is run over by a truck (just one of many examples), loses a couple of limbs or a few brain cells to say the least…wakes up without limbs to surgeons explaining how she was found yet she doesn't remember being run over by a truck due to brain damage, she can't remember??? Uh, ya get the point? LOL Not funny when ignorant folks think that all trauma can be remembered. Yeap…it sure can take alot of time recovering from a coma so to speak to file a police report or even recover in a hospital for that matter from severe trauma like rape….. Have a nice day Loftus. Ya missed the point.

….P.S….and that is how PTSD can affect those who have been severely traumatized. The Roman Catholic Church does, can and has done more damage than an 18 wheel truck intentionally running over innocent people, imo. Oh, and I strongly suspect that the RCC (my spelling the roman catholic church with capital letters is not a compliment, btw) feels real big about their worldwide organized crimes and cover-ups since it is so polictically well connected.

….that is just a very small example of how the Catholic Church in its worldwide organized crime and cover ups dwarfs and laughs at the mafia. The mafia was just a distraction. Call me crazy if it makes some of your readers feel better. Just guess who will rape and rip your body parts apart first….a pizza palor?…or the Catholic Church? I suspect the RCC has proven it is totally into human trafficking and…uh…high crimes. The FBI, for example, just doesn't want to face that fact, imo. They gotta deal with the RCC to the detriment of public safety. Oh, and god bless you. LOL

Arguing with an evil moron like P is worthless. But like the fool I am here I go again.

Yes, P seeking compensation is all about money. What else have you got to give? Cheap, free prayers perhaps? Prayers always work. Don't they? Not one authenticated cure at Lourdes for example. Yet tens of thousands of hotel rooms in Lourdes bring in the cash, century after century.

Why don't you show us an example of your magical prayer cures? Show us an uncompensated victim of priest sex abuse healed by your money saving answer to everything: prayer. (LMFAO!)

Money equals compensation for crimes committed and damages done. When a victim in one state is told they can not sue when suing is their only chance at compensation, what are they to do? (Since the church neither seeks victims out nor compensates victims who come forward on their own)

What happens inside to a victim when she/he sees in another state victims have been compensated? How are they to feel? How would the readership feel if they were a real victim who hadn't the chance to seek just damages?

I realize that posting anything here brings an avalanche of crap posts from P. If the opposition to the lies here don't post, P disappears.

Why should I bother? Maybe, getting P to disappear might be the best I can do.

On the 14th at 1235AM – which should come as a surprise to nobody familiar with ‘Dan’s games – he doth declare that a) “there is no need [for him] to respond” to the points I made … but also that b) he just happens to have received a God-gram “for” me (actually he whomped it up himself, no doubt the result of some serious pot-stirring in the precincts of his bathroom mirror).

One might picture it: “The Divine Servant” toiling and stirring, the pot between his ears bubbling, and then – voila! – the God-gram retrieved from the moosh, to the approving oohs and ahhs of the herd resident in the said mirror.

The Stampede may well continue to exist – in whatever desiccated form – for as long as derangement exists.

Thanks for the compliment, but the prophecy came courtesy of my friend. Bother you a bit that the Lord has you pegged as a "slander[ing] demon." Don't you think if I was to make up a prophecy to describe you, it would contain a few more adjectives, ignorant being the first to come to mind. And your narcissistic personality disorder would have everyone believe that anyone who questions your ignorance and can back it up with quotations from Scripture, has to be deranged. Oh! Yes! And all the tons of allegations are just that, only allegations, when pedophile priests and perverts of your cult, actually admitted guilt, died or beat the charges claiming SOL, or victims were secretly paid hush money for the good of the cult. You are one disingenuous creep. Get your head out of the sand, or we truly will believe that you're just plain stupid. Thankfully, "He will deliver us from [your] evil." servant

P.S. "The Divine Servant", would be referring to Jesus Christ, so you might want to withhold your mocking, as difficult as that is for you.

That bit of flummery having been accomplished, ‘Dan’ (the 14th at 117AM) doffs the Wig of Divine Knowledge, exits the bathroom, and heads for his desk (or kitchen table) where he dons the Wig of Evidentiary Plenitude:

He provides three names … but – as should come as a surprise to nobody familiar with the Stampede Playbook – then quickly adds “just to name a few”.

But actually, how many “names” are there really, about which i) one can definitively declaim that they are guilty of abuse (ii – however that supremely elastic term is defined) … ?

This is a core and abiding question – Question, even – in the whole Matter.

One might be able to name some names that fit the parameters of (ii) and (iii), but not very many.

And surely, the examples of abuse-jurisprudence and cases, civil and/or criminal, that we have seen (the Lynn case being only the most recent) – taken in conjunction with the many distorting elements of the Stampede so often noted here – provide compelling substance to ground some serious doubts as to the Stampede scare-visions of a Church chock full of pedophiliac and/or abusive priests operating on the basis of an age-old fundamental Church objective of institutionalizing such abuse in an ongoing, centuries or millennia-long sexual racketeering enterprise.

"[A] Church chock full of pedophiliac and/or abusive priests operating on the basis of an age-old fundamental Church objective of institutionalizing such abuse in an ongoing, centuries or millennia-long sexual racketeering enterprise.

That has to be, without doubt, your best assessment and analysis of your catholic cult and it's modus operandi, I have ever heard. Did peewee have some help defining it so well? servant

But it has been a basic trick of the Stampede (still obvious in assorted Abusenik comments on this site) that – having flooded the public imagination with scare-visions – then the enterprising Abuseniks and advocates can simply presume and depend-upon the sly claim that ‘everybody knows’ (so, of course, they don’t have to provide any serious evidence nor – crucially – allow any careful assessment).

That’s how the Game is played and has been played. And it feeds – conveniently – into a number of agendas, whether of outright Abuseniks or of more general and ‘theological’ specimens such as ‘Dan’.

As a further example of which ‘Dan’s concluding appeal to Wiki counts of “Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country” simply demonstrates my points. Anybody can make an allegation and have it become a “case”; the question is whether such a ‘case’ (more properly, ‘allegation’) is veracious and accurate and sustained by actual persuasive evidence.

And readers may note how – slyly – ‘Dan’ tries to sidestep and evade the actual precipitous fall-off in US allegations by trying to appeal to the entire (at least, Western-influenced) world for a quantitatively-satisfying list of “cases”.

On then to the comments by ‘Kris’, starting here with his of the 14th at 401PM:

He opens – revealingly – with the juvenile “Yawn” bit.

He then proceeds – revealingly – to demonstrate his lack of chops (and perhaps integrity) as an assessor and as a psychologically-informed individual: he slyly tries to conflate the usual ‘repressed memory’ scam type of case with one in which “Elizabeth Loftus” (a psychologist and professor and writer noted for her debunking of ‘repressed memory’, slyly enough) sustains “brain damage” in a massively traumatic motor vehicle accident.

But that hardly works here. In the Loftus example, there is massive physical trauma to the brain itself, the mechanism of injury being that she was just run over by a truck.

But in the usual ‘repressed memory’ case as deployed in the assorted sex-abuse gambits, there is no such clear and massive and actually physical mechanism of injury and thus also no such clear and physically ascertainable elements of traumatic “brain damage”.

And instead, there is simply the (alleged) experience of (some level of) sexual abuse. Which can hardly be postulated as causing massive and traumatic physical “brain damage”.

And thus we are right back to square one and the hall of mirrors that abides at the heart of so many of such gambits.

He then essays a knowing (though juvenile) hoot to the effect that “ignorant folks think that all trauma can be remembered”.

Once the childhood period prior to the development of the memory capability itself is essentially completed, then it becomes highly and profoundly problematic to demonstrate that genuinely traumatic experiences cannot be remembered.

(We went over this at great length quite a while ago in comments here, discussing the problems with ‘repressed memory’ theory. Readers may use the Wiki entry for ‘Repressed Memory Theory’ in order to get a general overview of the state of the question, or consult more scholarly work (including that by Loftus) as they may wish.)

And, as I noted in a prior comment on this thread, the PTSD template was formulated precisely to address the problem that sufferers could not forget their experience, not that they could not remember their experience.

Thus too then, the example of the “coma” fails here, since that brain state is effectively a variant of the first conflated example, i.e. of one having suffered massive physical brain trauma and damage.

And thus too ‘Kris’s sly and immediate equation of “rape” with “severe trauma” (to the brain) fails vividly, if not also spectacularly. And I would add that few if any allegations in the Catholic Abuse Matter rise to the level of genuine and actual “rape”.

And so – as should come as a surprise to few if any – it becomes clear just who has “missed the point” here, or – quite possibly – who has tried to fudge and confuse the point.

After opening with – had you been waitttttinggggg forrrr ittttttttt? – epithet, JR once again dons the Wig of Hurt Decency and indulges – as he so often likes to do – in a simultaneous self-pitying and self-aggrandizing bleat-y rumination as to how he is victimized, this time by being bethump’t by my material, in response to which bethumpery he will simply soldier-on with his lonely (but oh-so heroic) endeavors and agenda.

(And, demonstrating the same neatly self-serving dynamic as we see in ‘Dan’s derangement, JR has arranged his blocks neatly here so that the more he is considered rather outré – to put it nicely – then the more that simply proves him to be right and truthy and very clever.)

In his second paragraph, in an effort to extricate himself from having demonstrated that he is all about the money, JR will now try to proffer the proposition that it actually is all about the money.

But he quickly then tries to move everyone beyond giving that revelation about himself any further thought, and heads for … Lourdes. And readers may consider that riff as they will.

Lourdes has quite a few carefully assessed and scientifically certified miracles in its record; the only ‘miracle’ in JR’s case is that he got a million dollars for (allegedly) having his hand stuck down a teacher’s pants.

And there was an extended discussion on Lourdes quite a while ago on this site. Thus JR’s assertion that there is “not one authenticated cure at Lourdes” is utterly untrue.

In his next paragraph, JR – as so often – loses control of his thought process as he rants and vents. He would be well-advised to do less LMFAO-ing and more studying, but that is not – and perhaps never has been – how he rolls. As is also the case with ‘Kris’ and his LOL-ing and rolling around the floor.

“Money” may be a form of “compensation”, but in life there are many forms and types of compensations, among which money does not rank as the highest (except to certain types). It is revealing here that JR asserts that “money equals compensation”.

And, but of course and as always, even on his own terms here JR’s bit fails, since we haven’t at all established the “crimes committed” and – surely – “the damages done”. But we’ve been all over that before many many times.

And the bit about the Church not seeking victims out fails in the veracity department since there are 800-numbers and policies in place for precisely those persons who wish to come forward with claims.

JR then tries to essay an exploration into the psychology of a “victim when she/he sees in another state victims have been compensated”.

Are we to presume then that all the victims in – say – California have already been – as it were – “compensated”?

And, but of course, his whole bit is predicated slyly upon the presumption of a “real victim”, i.e. a genuine victim. But that has been and remains one of the most profound of the questions and problems with the Stampede from the get-go, has it not?

(For the solution of which the Victimist Playbook merely demands that one accept every claim and allegation as a full, veracious and true ‘report’ and avoid any insensitive and un-Christian re-victimizing by asking any further questions.)

And JR then tries to conclude by dismissing any of my comments as merely being “crap material”, followed by yet another derailment into the nonsensical with his bit about my ‘disappearing’.

And as he heads for the wings, JR doth again clutch the pearls and declaim as to why he should “bother” at all to put up his stuff.

And thus is the method (as it were) to JR’s madness (quite accurate) revealed: he will continue on his lonely but heroic quest to ‘get’ me to “disappear”. If that’s the best he can do, then he will have to learn to live with disappointment. And yet we all know now just what happens when JR doesn’t get what he wants … he doesn’t do disappointment well at all.

As so often, describing a derangement pales next to an actual vivid example of derangement.

On the 17th at 411AM ‘Dan’ will attempt to burnish his ‘god-gram’ bit by insisting – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – that he cawn’t really take credit for whomping up the text of his most recent god-gram because – doncha see? – “Jesus Christ” and/or “the Lord” wrote it.

So there it is.

Whether God or Jesus actually typed up the comment, and what role ‘Dan’s mind – such as it may be – played in the composition … well, why quibble over details when we have here a piece of mail direct from … the denizens of ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror?

And, as always, ‘Dan’ selects only those bits that contribute to his cartoon. But his derangement is not evidenced by his questions (to the extent he asks any well-formulated questions in the first place) nor by his quotations from Scripture.

Rather, his derangement is evidenced by a) his identification of himself (or Himself) with the Mind and Will of God; b) buttressed as we have just seen here by his claims – and, more importantly, belief – that what he writes is the very Word of God; c) his obsessive focus on children and sexual perversities as he claims they are vividly evidenced in the Church while his own actions and words in regard to children are (as “hundreds” of persons as well as police and judges have realized) cause for all sorts of serious concerns; d) in order to evade all of which he simply dismisses all such concerns as being merely “lies” and “slander” and so on.

And such are the types that have found the Stampede so congenial a nest.

First, my well-formulated question - a) You're under the impression, that your best 'evidence' of one's 'derangement' is a Christian "with the Mind and Will of God?" Scriptural answer – "The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is not subject to anyone's judgement. [ESPECIALLY YOURS] For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct Him? But we have the MIND OF CHRIST." 1 Cor 2:15-16 So much for your poor "theology". b) I informed you that I did not write that one. You have to make an effort to pay more attention. c) "his obsessive focus on children and sexual perversities as he claims they are vividly evidenced in the church are cause for all sorts of serious concerns." If your clan wasn't so plagued with perverts and pedophiles, then I would have absolutely nothing to point out. d) Your added "lies" and "slander" is also evidence that you're one of the many "hundreds" of blatant, hypocrital liars in your cult. You're one disingenuous, mocking snake, and a prime example of a deceivingly, good catholic. servant of God, with the mind of Christ

Here, JR will attempt to explain the wisdom behind his recent riff-rant on ‘disappear’: JR doth announce and predict that if he and the other Abuseniks disappear, then I will disappear.

I’ve put up a number of comments that were not prompted by any specific Abusenik stuff; I could put up more, but there’s only so much time in the day and the Abusenik material provides such a rich and useful lode that needs to be mined.

Then – apropros of nothing that appears on the table – JR will riff on about “why anyone would think” and so forth.

But the method (such as it is) in the madness here is that it platforms yet another run of epithet by JR, this time about my “low IQ” and so forth.

Of course, any reader so inclined is welcome to turn to JR for something in the “superiority” and “morality” line. Although I would say that one would have to have a very superior IQ indeed to find the “morality” in JR’s stuff and performance here.

simply retreats under some form of smoke screen to evade having to back up his bit.

Thus, on the 17th at 740PM – facing my points about the problems with ‘repressed memory’ – he merely starts laughing as he heads for the exit, piously declaiming that he’ll “wait and see” what courts and legislators and so on have to say.

Readers are welcome to conduct their own assessment, and I proffer here the following link:

This article only goes up to 1999, but indicates that even by that time the theory was in trouble with the courts. Since that time there have been no significant reversals in that clear trend of which I am aware.

Marvelously, he opens by presenting what he apparently thinks is a “well-formulated question”, which grammatically turns out to be a statement and not a question. Who can be surprised?

He then seeks to prove that he is not deranged but simply is just another “Christian ‘with the Mind and Will of God’”.

But that fails for several reasons.

First, the ordinary Christian does not presume him/herself to be as directly in-touch with God and God’s Mind and Will as ‘Dan’ has always – and vividly – demonstrated here. So ‘Dan’ (contrary to his sly self-characterization here) is no ordinary Christian.

I was joking about a "well-formulated question" and did present that as such, but if you claim it's a statement about yourself than so be it. Anyone who professes to be a true Christian should be following and have the "mind of Christ". I don't "presume" to be in touch with God, I am in touch with Him because I try to live and follow His teachings. I am no "ordinary Christian", because I'm not like the phony, so-called religious hypocrites, who claim to follow Him, but only in word, and not in truth or actions, like you and your cult.

Second, ordinary Christians are aware that they are not perfect ‘receivers’ of God’s Word nor perfect ‘implementers’ of God’s Will. We have never seen such humility in ‘Dan’s religious-theological pretensions.

And, indeed, we could not ever see such since it is abyssally vital to the success of ‘Dan’s personal cartoon that he (or He) be so perfect in his self-identification with the Divine as to be for all practical purposes invulnerable to criticism or objection across the board.

Never, ever did I claim to be perfect, for there was only one perfect human on this earth, and contrary to your cult's belief that that would be mary, no that would be the Son of God. Never said I was "invulnerable" to constructive "criticism", but that would not include your vicious "lies" railed against me.

Third, we see ‘Dan’s lack of humility (and rather profound lack of self-awareness) in his merely declaring or presuming himself (or Himself) to be “the spiritual man” Paul describes in First Corinthians. And his record of comments here certainly provides clear evidence that he is not such a perfect “spiritual man”, but rather is deeply involved in some seriously deranged personal whackness (and I have discussed those instances at length in the record here).

Do you think you're the perfect example of humility, with all your obnoxious correction of other writers simple mistakes or typos? You with your longwinded nonsense, thinking you're "Mr. Know It All", displaying all your worldly, worthless wisdom, while constantly calling others deranged and whacked. At least I don't show some false humility, like the perverts of your cult, claiming to be Godly while secretly raping little children, preferably young boys.

Indeed, in this entire section of First Corinthians (from verses 10 to 16) it is Paul who is establishing himself as being beyond the judgment of the (Greek-oriented, philosophically-grounded) Corinthians: it is Paul’s (profound) experience and knowledge of God through Christ that overrides the merely philosophical speculation of the Corinthians.

So what we have in ‘Dan’s comment here is – had you been waitttinggggg forrrrr ittttttt? – ‘Dan’s ascribing to himself the spiritual depth and profundity of Saint Paul himself. But it is Paul who is “the spiritual man” here, and for ‘Dan’ to try to lasso Paul into ‘Dan’s personal (and oh-so-necessary) cartoon is merely another example of ‘Dan’s quite un-humble derangement.

Never claimed to have the "spiritual depth, experience [or] knowledge of God through Christ" that Paul attained, so for you to make such a claim is both disingenuous and another of your many "lies", of which you seem to have a continuous habit and no problem doing.

So much, then, for ‘Dan’s “poor theology”, which is – as always – hampered, constricted and deranged by his abiding and ever-primary need to somehow shoehorn himself (or Himself) into the Trinity so as to evade or preclude any critical questioning of his own rather vivid difficulties and issues.

As for his (b) point, it makes no sense. He “informed” one and all that it was not he but Christ who wrote his god-gram, which – as I said at the time – merely serves to illustrate my point even more vividly.

Never said I was part of the "Trinity". Another example of one of your disgusting "lies". Never said I wrote the prophecy and informed you that my friend wrote the words down. Because of her brain damage and the fact that she normally writes at 6-8 year old level, thoroughly convinces me that these words of wisdom come from God or Christ. The fact that you can't accept that, would be a testament to your derangement, or at least a failure of Spiritual discernment. And that would explain your consistent mocking of God, Jesus and His Word.

Here he tries to establish his usual claims about the Church by trying this form of ‘logic’: if the Church weren’t so flawed then he “would have absolutely nothing to point out”.

That would be possibly if modestly accurate if we didn’t also have to factor in the driving force of his personal derangement, such that he simply cannot refrain from his focus lest he have to confront himself and his personal issues in that (already-crowded) bathroom mirror.

I “added” the bit about “lies” and “slander” only to quote his own usual eructations.

And he heads for the exit honking his usual epithets and his concluding cartoon compliment to himself (or Himself).

Your last post is just a repeat of your nonsense and deserves no response. I do have to laugh at the fact that you insist on carrying on a debate with someone you consider "deranged". Maybe your cult can crown you Saint of the Deranged, and add you to their ridiculous list of mediators.

Jim, say the word. If you quit posting, then I surely will. I'm sure we both could find a better use of our time and energy, than wasting it trying to convince a hypocrite liar.

On the 20th at 459PM ‘Dan’ tries to extricate himself from his “well-formulated question” bit by now claiming that he was only “joking”. Ovvvvv coursssssse.

But as he continues trying to extricate himself, he digs himself in deeper:

First, he claims he doesn’t “’presume’ to be in touch with God” – and yet he put up a ‘prophecy’ just recently that he claims didn’t come from him but from Jesus or –take your pick – “the Lord”.

Second, he then claims that he is indeed “in touch with” Christ because he – ‘Dan’, that is – doth “try to live and follow His teachings”. So, then, anyone who merely doth “try” to follow the teachings of Christ is ipso facto a) in touch with Christ and b) so closely in touch with Christ that such an anyone can pass on written missives from Christ.

Third, he pronounces that he is no “ordinary Christian” since – prepare yourselves – most such “ordinary Christian[s]” are “phony, so-called religious hypocrites”. …. But, ovvvv courssssse, not ‘Dan’.

Here ‘Dan’ clutches all his pearls and doth declaim that “Never, ever” has he claimed “to be perfect”.

He is welcome, then, to share in just what ways he doth see himself as imperfect in his efforts to follow the teachings of Christ. The record here certainly indicates that ‘Dan’ resists any criticism or questioning, so he’s going to have to give some examples.

He then – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – quickly tries to change the subject to one of his preferred eructations, about Mary.

And let’s just save some time and dispose of what he claims to have “said” and “never, ever said”: his own material includes the various presumptions I have noted, whether he has “said” them or not.

And he tries to get out from under that problem by asserting that my criticism isn’t “constructive” (a term he has slyly added on his own, for his own convenience) … so – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – my material doesn’t count and he doesn’t have to deal with it.

He then tries to change the subject again, by making it sound as if I have claimed to be “the perfect example of humility” – although he provides no quotes from my material, since none exist. I claim perfection in nothing; I just question what seems questionable.

But this gives him a lead-in to riff epithetically on my material and no surprises there.

‘Dan’ – however – is correct that I consider him “deranged” and whacky. And I have explained my conclusions in that regard at great length, using ‘Dan’s own material.

He then goes on about “false humility”, but since he hasn’t got anything in my material to work with on that score, he simply (and slyly) switches focus to – as best can be seen here – priests, whom he characterizes in a general and convenient (to his cartoon) sort of way, apparently hoping that some vivid description will distract readers from his own issues.

On the 20th at 522PM we once again get some of his “never said” denials, which gambit I have addressed above.

Either ‘Dan’ has compared himself or identified-himself with Paul as “the spiritual man” or he hasn’t – and his comment is in the record for examination.

And if he wishes to be taken at his word here that he does not have the spiritual depth of Paul, then where does he get off making the assertions he does? (Short answer: if he doesn’t have the spiritual depth of Paul, ‘Dan’ does have a very close connection to Christ – such that Christ sends him text to be put up.

Readers may consider as they might which is more indicative of whackness.

On the 20th at 610PM ‘Dan’ points out that since Paul said “we” (i.e. “But we have the mind of Christ”) then … what?

That would depend on a) who this “we” is and b) whether ‘Dan’ is part of that “we” in any sense other than that ‘Dan’ has assigned himself that status. Surely, Paul does not imply here (or anywhere else) that any Christian can receive clear and direct and specific textual missives from Christ, no matter how “true” (scream-caps omitted) a Christian that person might be.

Once again, just another “never said” bit as has been dealt with above.

This time though – and had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – we are now informed that while the ‘prophecy’ was from Christ, yet ‘Dan’ did not write it. (Well, duh, it came – did it not? – from Christ.)

But ‘Dan’ then introduces some “friend” who (merely) “wrote the words down”. So what? ‘Dan’ claims to have received a textual missive, specifically worded, from Christ. That ‘Dan’ had to have a third party actually do the typing or writing-down (for whatever reasons) is irrelevant; and that although – get this – the friend has “brain damage” and she “normally writes” at an early-grade-school level, yet the fact that the “friend” came up with so sterling and mature a written ‘prophecy’ is more than enough proof for ‘Dan’ that it’s “from God or Christ”.

And yet on the basis of this crockpot of hash, ‘Dan’ then asserts that “the fact that [I] can’t accept” that this brain-damaged person is channeling “God or Christ” thus “would be a testament to my derangement”. And thus he has piled his little (and queasily dubious) blocks for his own convenience.

And then tries this: why would I carry on “a debate” with someone I “consider ‘deranged’”?

Well, that’s easy. I don’t consider this a debate (because ‘Dan’ is in all probability quite deranged). Rather, I use the material he puts up to demonstrate to readers the type of mentalities and characters that are nesting in the Stampede.

And then and then: ‘Dan’ will head for the wings with this bit: he suddenly calls upon “Jim”, who need only “say the word” and – the horror! – ‘Dan’ will “quit posting”. Which is specious on its face, since ‘Dan’ can stop putting his stuff up any time he wants to. This whole shout-out to “Jim” is merely another catty ‘just entre nous’ that we see from time to time when Abuseniks have nothing better.

How little have any known of the mind of God by natural power! And the apostles were enabled by his Spirit to make known his mind. In the Holy Scriptures, the mind of Christ, and the mind of God in Christ, are fully made known to us. It is the great privelege of [true] Christians, that they have the mind of Christ revealed to them by his Spirit. They experience his sanctifying power in their hearts, and bring forth good fruits in their lives."

No p, I do not expect you to understand or get this, for it would take a spiritually minded person to comprehend things of the Spirit. For anyone to consider another deranged, because the Spirit has been freely given to them, they receive prophetic messages from God or because they are far from ashamed to live or quote the Lord's Word, I have to say I feel very sorry for that person. After all, the organized religious hypocites of Christ's day, considered Christ and his followers to be crazy and questioned their sanity. Far be it from me to expect different, than the lies, slander and accusations that they had to field. servant

I would like to comment on the offer I made to Jim. I could care less about your use of "catty just entre nous" BS, or whatever stupid phraseology you think you can use to show your ignorance. As long as Jim is here to give his atheistic point of view, I feel it only fair that someone gives a Christian or Godly perspective, in order to offset your lukewarm perspective of I don't know what to call it, but by no means is it Christian in any form. My guess is it's some form of catholic hypocrisy, which means to twist, lie, falsely accuse and slander, in any way, in order to demean and destroy an opponents truth. And I don't think anyone leaving this forum, would contribute to any positive change to your ignorance and nonsense, otherwise I would have left a long time ago.

Oh Great Lying Saint of the Deranged, Your garbage and nonsense of the 21st doesn't even deserve a response. I'll let another explain it to you, but doubt it will do you any good.

Matthew Henry Commentary on 1 Cor 2:16 – "God has revealed true wisdom to us by his Spirit. The apostles were not guided by worldly principles. They had the revelation of these things from the spirit of God … These things they declared in plain, simple language, taught by the Holy Spirit, totally different from the affected oratory or enticing words of man's wisdom. The natural man, the wise man of the world, receives not the things of the Spirit of God.The pride of carnal reasoning is really as much opposed to spirituality, as the basest sensuality. The sanctified mind discerns the real beauties of holiness, but the power of discerning and judging about common and natural things is not lost. But the carnal man is a stranger to the principles, and pleasures, and acting of the Divine life. The spiritual man only, is the person to whom God gives the knowledge of his will. (cont.)

On the 21st at 1006AM, confronted with more material than he can handle, ‘Dan’ once again opens with epithet, followed by – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – a huffy declamation to the effect that my material doesn’t deserve a response.

Having said that, he proceeds to put up a response.

Well, it’s actually not his response – perhaps he really can’t wrap his mind around theological and Scriptural stuff after all.

So he simply tosses up another quotation, this time not from Scripture, but from a Bible commentator (Matthew Henry, a late-17th century Evangelical Protestant minister, in whose work there is a tendency to give vent to anti-papism by associating the Pope with the anti-Christ and so forth).

Thanks 'Mr. Know It All", for the history lesson on Matthew Henry. I've really enjoyed his interpretation of the Bible and Spiritual wisdom, but to hear that he had a "tendency to give vent to anti-papism by associating the Pope with the anti-Christ", gives greater credence to his opinions. Although I prefer to think of popes as anti-Christs, not just associated with the anti-Christ.

Readers may consider the Henry material as they will. The key point is the one that isn’t in it: whether or not ‘Dan’ is rightly to be equated-with and identified-as one of those with a “sanctified mind”. Otherwise, the Henry material is rather irrelevant to the issues at hand here.

And while at this point one might easily wonder if ‘Dan’ isn’t a great deal more “carnal” than he cares or dares admit, there is an even deeper point: that the worldliness and – if you wish – ‘carnality’ exhibited by ‘Dan’ is not of the more obvious kind, but rather is based in his own clinging to psychologically deranging gambits and habits that cannot but prevent serious and genuine ‘spiritual’ development and ‘Dan’ will thus long remain a “natural” or “carnal” or non-“spiritual” man.

Because ‘Dan’s whole purpose and project is a carnal and worldly one: not to promote the work of the Spirit but rather to continually sustain and play-out this cartoon of his in order to achieve his own personal purpose of evading his own rather substantive personal issues. ‘Dan’ is all about ‘Dan’ and the Spirit doesn’t enter into it, except to be used and manipulated by ‘Dan’ for his own purposes.

This – as may have already occurred to some readers – creates a double-layered derangement: first, there are the issues that have created the cartoon, and second there are the consequences of having constructed and of maintaining the cartoon designed to evade those issues.

And – considering now the Henry text in ‘Dan’s comment of the 21st at 1034AM – readers must also consider ‘Dan’s further manipulative effort: adding for his own convenience and purposes the word “true” in brackets to Henry’s text.

This is vitally necessary for the maintenance of ‘Dan’s personal – and we might now say carnal or non-spiritual – cartoon: the cartoon is based on the premise that while there may be many who claim to be Christians, yet ‘Dan’ is one of the few “true” (or as he would put it, “TRUE”) Christians.

If ‘Dan’ didn’t add this bit to Henry’s text, then readers might take-away from reading Henry’s text here merely the thought that Henry propounds: that all Christians, to the extent of their capacities, are able to participate in the “mind of God” through the apostles’ being gifted by the Spirit to know (to the extent any human being ever can) the “mind of God”.

But if readers were to read only Henry’s text (minus ‘Dan’s sly and manipulative addition) then ‘Dan’s cartoon would collapse, because that cartoon is based on ‘Dan’s need to evade his own issues by insisting upon ‘Dan’s own personal and so-speshull status, which – it clearly appears – is intended to rank ‘Dan’ somewhere up there with the apostles (meaning Christian ministers, Henry would seem to say) or perhaps even the Apostles themselves (meaning the Twelve).

Newsflash to publyin' and all false christians – There is only one type of real Christians and that would be 'TRUE' Christians. And you're under the impression that you are in the group of "all Christians", even though you rate at around zero "capacit[y]". Are you under the impression that mockers of God, qualifies one as Godly. I presume that's why you think it's righteous to make excuses for pedophiles and perverts.

If the cartoon works, then ‘Dan’ becomes immune to any criticism or objection whatsoever, since whatever he says (or does) surely and genuinely and ‘truly’ and unassailably issues forth from “the mind of God”.

Neat, but deranged – and manipulatively so.

And with the quotation from Henry concluded, ‘Dan’ then grants himself a victory lap, pronouncing that he doth “not expect [me] to understand or get this” … because – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – “it would take a spiritually minded person to comprehend the things of the Spirit”.

First, ‘Dan’s assessment of my being “spiritually minded” can stay right up where it was put, and second, what it takes to understand ‘Dan’s cartoon and its workings is simply that a reader be somewhat clinically-minded.

And we see yet again his sly and manipulative effort to induce readers to presume that “the Spirit has been freely given to” him. While the Spirit seeks to pour out his gifts to any and all Christians, yet that gift is going to have a rather hard go of it, trying to establish itself in the welter of manipulative cartoon evasions that perfuse all of ‘Dan’s material because they perfuse his mind.

Clutching his pearls, ‘Dan’ then professes – with a rather obvious insincerity – that he doth “feel very sorry for” any person who cannot see what ‘Dan’ sees (through his cartoon god-goggles). I can only suggest that he weep not for me, but for himself.

And he then tries to wrap up the show by tossing up that old saw that will be familiar to many experienced clinicians: they thought Jesus was crazy, too.

But the representatives of the “organized religious” types of the Gospels thought Jesus was wide of the mark theologically. ‘Dan’ – as I have always pointed out – is primarily deranged not in a theological sense but in a clinical sense. His material is best viewed not through the lens of theology but rather of pastoral psychology.

But – as we see here – there is indeed that now-familiar abiding method to ‘Dan’s madness: on the basis of his cartoon, he can assume the pearl-clutchy , victim-y pose of one who shares in the apostolic fate of being, like Jesus, considered crazy by those who don’t know any better.

Here ‘Dan’ will try to evade my point about his catty little shout-out to JR by riffing on about how ‘Dan’ was simply trying to ‘give’ “a Christian or godly perspective” to the atheist JR.

But in the comment to which I was referring (the 20th at 552PM), ‘Dan’ did nothing of the sort, but simply shouted-out to JR that he (‘Dan’) would be ready to “quit posting” and JR “need only give the word”.

There is nothing of any “Christian or godly perspective” in that whatsoever; it is merely ‘Dan’s catty little gambit, as I said.

And we see again ‘Dan’s cartoon manipulation: either my or JR’s (it isn’t quite clear from what ‘Dan’s phrasing here) material is “some form of catholic hypocrisy” which – had you been waittttingggg forrrr itttttt? – is merely meant to “twist, lie, falsely accuse and slander” in order to “destroy an opponent’s truth” (correction supplied).

To which I would simply point out that ‘Dan’s “truth” is a cartoon-truth designed to evade the actual truth about ‘Dan’: he is, for a number of reasons, deranged and has chosen Scripture and the authority of God to both a) evade that uncongenial truth personally and to b) impose that evasion on others.

He can conduct his personal interior life as he may, but since his agenda of imposing that evasion on others involves his various eructations about the Church and Catholicism generally – as well as doing no small damage to the integrity of the Spirit’s work among humans – then I will speak out against it.

His concluding sentence – while grammatical – makes no sense. How could “anyone leaving this forum” contribute to making “any positive change” and in what way has that possibility resulted in ‘Dan’s not leaving the site “a long time ago”? But perhaps in his own mind this bit platforms more epitheticals, and that was his only purpose in the first place.

And what can we say about your "cartoon manipulation", trying to place your issues on JR. If I'm talking of "catholic hypocrisy" and one who would "twist, lie, falsely accuse and slander", then that would without doubt be the perfect description of you. I love how you just attempted to "twist" and "falsely accuse" JR of these traits. Proof positive of your "cartoon manipulations". Are you sure when your accusing me, that you're not looking at yourself in your "bathroom mirror". Though I don't know how someone with your lying disposition would even be able to look at himself in the mirror. Maybe time you tried. servant

To sum up – I didn't feel like commenting on all your ignorance and nonsense, so I thought I'd end with this. I questioned myself as to why I don't leave this forum. Truthfully, I think I've begun to enjoy hearing what kind of comical stupidity you'll invent next. And do you think if you mention enough times, deranged, cartoon or some form of manipulate, in regards to me, you'll be able to convince readers, or are you just trying to convince yourself, in order to excuse your own issues. Regarding your accusation as to my "various eructations about the church and catholicism generally – as well as doing no small damage to the integrity of the Spirit's work among humans." And are you deceived enough to think that your mocking, lying and making excuses for perverts, somehow brings glory to God and His Spirit? To answer your eructations claim, I'll let the Lord field that one, because I know how much you enjoy Scripture.

"For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has NO inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." Ephesians 5:5-6 I don't know why you are so offended with me quoting Scripture for you, when God describes you and your cult often in His Word. servant

Making the point again: the similarity in the performances proffered by the Abuseniks and by ‘Dan’ consists in this: both of these sets require an initial core and crucial presumption that is not – and cannot – be demonstrated or proven, but rather which must be taken as accurate and true and veracious with no questions asked nor doubts expressed.

Thus for the Abuseniks it is the fact of the genuineness of their ‘victimization’ and for ‘Dan’ it is the oh-so-speshull relationship with (fill in the blank) such that ‘Dan’s material (being merely the channeling of the mind of God) is and must be beyond question or doubt.